Sure go ahead and see it.Then follow it up with a read of the CEI On Point criticism of it. Then sure, draw your own conclusions.

Despite what people like Latimer say, there is another side that puts it in better perspective.

Does that mean that I deny that Co2 may be warming the atmoshpere No.
Do I believe that Co2 is the sole cause of current warming. No it isnt, and neither do the real scientists involved

"The average Arctic temperatures on record for the 1930s were higher than 2005/06"

With these words Carbonari demonstrates a frequently used ploy of sceptics: Realclimate soundly debunked this argument in December 2004 ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22 ), yet this and many other debunked sceptic arguments get resurrected from their coffins like vampires in bad horror flicks.

Who cares if there are other contributing factors or not. Humanity is addingthe feather that breaks the camels back in that case. There are so many ways in which we can totally screw up this planet. Globaldimming could trigger an ice-age. The ice cap melt could suddenly escalate when it reaches a certain point as it seems to be doing now and our coastlines will disapear. Hurricanes could increase to the point where we are all living in bunkers during the storm season. The hole in the Ozone layer is now as large as it was in 2000 despite the reduction in CFC gases being released. Maybe this is a side effect of global warming we didn't foresee. The environment is delicate. It goes through all kinds of changes and ofcourse we can influence those changes. It's the butterfly effect. Every action has consequences.We can't dump billions of tons of CO2 and micro-particle nasties from coal burning waste then expect nothing to happen.

Most scientists worldwide now believe that 'we' are causing global warming.The rest are government yes men.

Quite aside for the science of climate change, I'm bothered by many things that have been said on this forum. Kang has suggested that climate change sceptics be tried for crimes against humanity and Gecko has compared them to Germans who sat on their hands in the face of the holocaust. From my experience, this kind of emotive nonsense isn't unsual from the hardcore left. Name calling isn't going to convince any sceptic of the reality of climate change; it only serves to dumb down the debate.

I haven't seen Al Gore's film so I am reluctant to criticise the substance of it. With respect to the climate change theory in general, there is one key issue I've yet to hear addressed. Numerous reputable sources have determined that the relationship between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and temperature is logarithmic. That is, each additional amount of CO2 added to the atmopshere has a smaller effect that than the previous addition. Given that C02 levels have already increased significantly, the effect of further increases in C02 levels will not be significant. As some other posters have pointed out, the unusual solar activity of recent decades would also have a significant effect upon global temperatures, some scientists determining that it has had a greater effect than the increase in CO2 levels. Reassuringly, there is evidence to suggest that this solar activity is decreasing and may in fact lead to global cooling in coming decades.

In short, the extent to which the earth's temperature is increasing has been overstated. The causal relationship between C02 levels and global temperature has been exaggerated. And the doom and gloom predictions are entirely unlikely to come to pass.

Fester, if Carbonari is cherry-picking, so is Gore. Ironically, the dramatic scene where he climbs up a graph of projected CO2 growth even involves a real-life cherry picker. One example - Gore claims that because of global warming the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are melting. In fact, they've always melted, but would appear to be disappearing because of decreased precipitation, meaning less snow is replaced each year, but not because it has got any warmer in the vicinity. This process has been apparently going on for all of the 20th Century.

Gore also invents a few facts, such as Tuvalu and Kirribati sinking and causing the residents to migrate to New Zealand.

BTW, I checked out the Real Climate report. I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to have "debunked". It confirms that Arctic temperatures were higher in the 30s than now, and suggests that this is to do with changes in wind direction, but now it is to do with carbon dioxide forcing. Perhaps, but the changes observed are still within natural variability as far as temperature goes, so where does that leave the dire predictions that Gore makes for the Arctic?

One should also bear in mind with Real Climate that it has been one of the strongest supporters of the Mann et al. "Hockey Stick" graph which purported to show, using some proxies, that things had never been hotter in the last 1,000 years than at the latter end of the 20th century. The graph has since been discredited as the result of faulty mathematics. The role of Real Climate in the controversy was also criticised. Mann, who came up with the "Hockey Stick" is one of the people behind Real Climate.

That's it! I am sick of people bashing the hockey stick! The hockey stick has NOT been discredited. Those who attempt to discredit the model (eg:McIntyre and McKitrick (2003)) do so along these lines: We fed random numbers into the computer program, and produced a resulting hockey stick graph.

However, these people do not understand the mathematical concpet of statistical regression analysis. Indeed as was reported by Rutherford et all (2004):

"It should be noted that some falsely reported putative errors in the Mann et al.(1998)
proxy data claimed by are an artifact of (b) their misunderstanding of the methodology used by Mann et al. (1998) to calculate PC series of proxy networks over progressively longer time intervals".

I'll try to make this simple. In Mann (1998), they selected a statistical quantity called a Principal Component. They help you tell if quantity is statistically relevant. For the hockey stick, they used PCs to summarise the data of North American tree rings (which give an indication of the temperature). The point of contention was that the PC's used for this data set "select" for the hockey stick shape. Hence the claim that random data makes a hockey stick.

This is not true. Bascially, MM(2003) reached their conclusion only after excluding a certain data set. This is not statisically correct. The critism of MM(2003) is not methodological, but about which data sets should have been included. Even so, the hockey stick has been independantly verified by many different authors. The yearly of decade temperatures predicted are not accurate, but the general trend is accepted, by the US goevernment of all skeptics

The science is far from complete. But the ignorance on this topic drives my to tears.